On 06/06/2013 03:08 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> + for_each_node_mask(nid, lru->active_nodes) {
>> > + struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
>> > +
>> > + spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
>> > + BUG_ON(nlru->nr_items < 0);
> This is buggy.
>
> The bit in lru->active_nodes could be cleared by now. We can only make
> this assertion if we recheck lru->active_nodes[nid] inside the
> spinlocked region.
>
Sorry Andrew, how so ?
We will clear that flag if nr_items == 0. nr_items should *never* get to
be less than 0, it doesn't matter if the node is cleared or not.
If the node is cleared, we would expected the following statement to
expand to
count += nlru->nr_items = 0;
spin_unlock(&nlru->lock);
Which is actually cheaper than testing for the bit being still set.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
